Three AMD 990FX-Based Motherboards For Enthusiasts

[Crashman]

AMD’s flagship FX-series processors squarely target enthusiasts with sub-$1,000 system budgets, and it's hard to get there with an expensive motherboard. We requested every vendor's top-value solution, and received three boards for your consideration.

Three AMD 990FX-Based Motherboards For Enthusiasts : Read more

 

[boulbox]

Glad to see AMD getting some love.

 

[designasaurus]

"if we diminished most of those power differences by not installing Asus' power management software at default settings, the company would have likely matched the performance of Gigabyte and ASRock."


Don't speculate! Do the tests and add it to the article so we can see what the software packages are actually accomplishing! That's why I read your site, yeah? For hard info that I can't get myself.

 

[bgunner]

[citation][nom]designasaurus[/nom]"if we diminished most of those power differences by not installing Asus' power management software at default settings, the company would have likely matched the performance of Gigabyte and ASRock."Don't speculate! Do the tests and add it to the article so we can see what the software packages are actually accomplishing! That's why I read your site, yeah? For hard info that I can't get myself.[/citation]
I totally agree with this statement. The test should have been done and added into the article because this would of been a good representative of the value of the software. I would like to know for a fact if the software was a hindrance to the electrical efficiency of the Asus and Gigabye boards.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]bgunner[/nom]I totally agree with this statement. The test should have been done and added into the article because this would of been a good representative of the value of the software. I would like to know for a fact if the software was a hindrance to the electrical efficiency of the Asus and Gigabye boards.[/citation]At least the power was measured and mentioned, even if it didn't get into the chart.

 

[bit_user]

AMD's 890FX was an excellent low-cost server platform, in its day. Great I/O, tons of PCIe lanes, 6-channel SATA3, and ECC support. All with boards and CPUs in the desktop price range that were close to being performance competitive with Intel (when they were introduced, at least).

Now, AMD is just slipping too far behind. Not just on the CPU front, but like how about some PCIe 3?

I'm waiting for 64-bit ARMs to hit the desktop. That's probably the next truly interesting thing on the horizon.

 

[falchard]

Aren't the 990FX chipsets kind old?

 

[boulbox]

Aren't the 990FX chipsets kind old?

Yes, but not a lot of new things need to be offered anyways. PCIe 3.0 is just a gimmick and doesn't really give much more performance over PCIe2

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]falchard[/nom]Aren't the 990FX chipsets kind old?[/citation]990FX is AMD's current "high-end" chipset for enthusiast-level desktops. AMD occasionally releases new chips (look last fall) and motherboard companies keep updating their selection of products.

Old chipset, recent boards, any questions?

 

[darkchazz]

"Three AMD 990FX-Based Motherboards For Enthusiasts"
I don't think enthusiasts would want to buy a slow CPU from AMD.

 

[Onus]

What did I miss? The ASRock has better features, including 3-way SLI, more USB3.0, an abundance of accessories, uses less power (the only positive efficiency), has higher performance, lower VRM temps; but BOTH of the other two got awards? I noted the comment about fluctuating prices, but on features alone ASRock looks like the winner. Surely it wasn't the slightly lower OC...

 

[Onus]

[citation][nom]darkchazz[/nom]"Three AMD 990FX-Based Motherboards For Enthusiasts"I don't think enthusiasts would want to buy a slow CPU from AMD.[/citation]
I think of enthusiasts as people interested in getting the maximum performance from their hardware; regardless of its base level, getting the most out of it. Boards like these which can be tweaked every which way are precisely the kinds of products enthusiasts enjoy.

 

[Novuake]

Saddest part about the platform is that it feels old and out of date. So little integration... This design is now years old and its their top of the lane. I see nothing new since 890.

 

[Novuake]

[citation][nom]darkchazz[/nom]"Three AMD 990FX-Based Motherboards For Enthusiasts"I don't think enthusiasts would want to buy a slow CPU from AMD.[/citation]

Really? Wow...

 

[Novuake]

[citation][nom]boulbox[/nom]Yes, but not a lot of new things need to be offered anyways. PCIe 3.0 is just a gimmick and doesn't really give much more performance over PCIe2[/citation]

I disagree, the whole platform smells of too much power consumption. AMD needs to INNOVATE, not just add more features and drive up power.

 

[azraa]

[citation][nom]Novuake[/nom]I disagree, the whole platform smells of too much power consumption. AMD needs to INNOVATE, not just add more features and drive up power.[/citation]

I disagree again. Sure the HT is old, but except for a few details, this boards, being updated regularly with their firmwares or even the pcb revisions, are quite good. The power modulation works fine for this quite cheap boards, I mean, check out those overclocks, and they are very conservative. The amount of sata3 ports is excellent, PCI lanes are ok just what you need nothing more nothing less. RAM management seems a bit old, you are correct, but only professionals get value of it, professionals that should be buying extreme Intel setups. For the average Joe editing and rendering, their memory solution is just 1 minute slower, who cares.

I think AMD doesn't need to innovate, which is quite a prostituted word. They need to improve their technologies further, as they've been doing for the last years, just at a faster pace, without falling into self indulgence, in that i agree with you.

 

[lilcinw]

It is nice to see my GA-990FXA-UD3 win a Tom's award (even if it is an older rev).

My only complaint about the board is that the NB or SB, I don't exactly remember which, would cause a thermal shutdown while running Folding@Home 24/7 last summer. It didn't help that a GTX 560 Ti at 100% load was dumping waste heat right on top of it.

Re-configuring the cooling in my cheap case and down-clocking the GPU got me back up and running.

 

[ddpruitt]

folks who put in the effort to configure Asus' power management software to their perfect preferences

I love Asus's power management options, power savings or performance when needed. Although I wish the balanced setting didn't cause problems with OCing and would pile on the juice when needed.

 

[dsolom3]

lilcinw, my friend had a similar problem. 2 ways to solve it:

1. move the GPU down to the second slot, which should drop NB temps by about 5-7 degrees C.

2. Replace the northbridge cooling solution with an active fan (10-15 degree drop). VRMs also get super-hot, 75C is not uncommon under load. Quite frankly, the NB/VRM colling solution on this board is terrible, and I cannot fathom how it got a recommendation at all given these grievances.

 

[g-unit1111]

I have that same Gigabyte board but an older version of it without the UEFI - it still holds up very well even after a CPU upgrade.

 

[subcutaneous]

[citation][nom]Onus[/nom]What did I miss? The ASRock has better features, including 3-way SLI, more USB3.0, an abundance of accessories, uses less power (the only positive efficiency), has higher performance, lower VRM temps; but BOTH of the other two got awards? I noted the comment about fluctuating prices, but on features alone ASRock looks like the winner. Surely it wasn't the slightly lower OC...[/citation]

I was left wondering the same thing.

 

[m32]

Thanks for the article, Toms.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]Onus[/nom]What did I miss? The ASRock has better features, including 3-way SLI, more USB3.0, an abundance of accessories, uses less power (the only positive efficiency), has higher performance, lower VRM temps; but BOTH of the other two got awards? I noted the comment about fluctuating prices, but on features alone ASRock looks like the winner. Surely it wasn't the slightly lower OC...[/citation]Nobody could compare its worth to its price because the price kept changing. It couldn't win at $190, it might have won at $160, and it was priced $175 last week when the article was written.

The process went something like this: "$160 for this? Bam, let me add the award logo", "Wait, I'd better check the price again", "Huh, $175? Should it still get an award?" "Oh, now it's $190, never mind".

 

[Onus]

Hmmm, it seems to me someone considering a $160 board would readily choose the ASRock at $190. The bracket and extra cables and extra SLI Bridge are probably worth another $25 anyway.

 

[Novuake]

[citation][nom]Onus[/nom]What did I miss? The ASRock has better features, including 3-way SLI, more USB3.0, an abundance of accessories, uses less power (the only positive efficiency), has higher performance, lower VRM temps; but BOTH of the other two got awards? I noted the comment about fluctuating prices, but on features alone ASRock looks like the winner. Surely it wasn't the slightly lower OC...[/citation]Nobody could compare its worth to its price because the price kept changing. It couldn't win at $190, it might have won at $160, and it was priced $175 last week when the article was written.

The process went something like this: "$160 for this? Bam, let me add the award logo", "Wait, I'd better check the price again", "Huh, $175? Should it still get an award?" "Oh, now it's $190, never mind".

Yeah Asrock boards are known for fluctuating prices. Mine is 25% more expensive now than it was 2 weeks ago...